<p>
  Catching <code>Exception</code> seems like an efficient way to handle multiple possible exceptions.
  Unfortunately, it traps all exception types and so both checked and runtime exceptions, casting too broad a net.
  Indeed, was it really the intention of developers to also catch runtime exceptions? To prevent any misunderstanding,
  if both checked and runtime exceptions are really expected to be caught, they should be explicitly listed in the <code>catch</code> clause.
</p>

<h2>Noncompliant Code Example</h2>
<pre>
try {
  // do something that might throw an UnsupportedDataTypeException or UnsupportedEncodingException
} catch (Exception e) { // Noncompliant
  // log exception ...
}
</pre>

<h2>Compliant Solution</h2>
<pre>
try {
  // do something
} catch (UnsupportedEncodingException|UnsupportedDataTypeException|RuntimeException e) {
  // log exception ...
}
</pre>
<p>or if runtime exceptions should not be caught:</p>
<pre>
try {
  // do something
} catch (UnsupportedEncodingException|UnsupportedDataTypeException e) {
  // log exception ...
}
</pre>

<h2>Exceptions</h2>
<p>No issue is raised if a method in the <code>try</code> block explicitly throws an <code>Exception</code>.</p>

<h2>See</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/396.html">MITRE, CWE-396</a> - Declaration of Catch for Generic Exception</li>
</ul>
